About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Michael's Picks

* Is the European economy being hurt by secularism? Stuart Varney and Father Jonathan Morris think so.

* President Obama has ordered hospital visitation rights for gay and lesbian couples.

* Nebraska lawmakers and abortion opponents want to use "pain" as a threshold for determining when abortion is acceptable; Jeff Schweitzer calls their bluff.

I hope this is a pick of yours simply because you find it interesting, not because you find it correct. For example, Fish's idea that a single "Enlightenment rational morality" even exists as a convenient target at which one can lob criticism such as not being able to "foster any impulse toward solidarity" is questionable. Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinkers have had multiple ideas on secular morality, and I don't think they deserve such a broad-brush dismissal. Also, Fish is vague on what religion is supposed to add. He handwaves in the direction of religion providing solidarity, but doesn't really say how it would do that.

You stated, //"Enlightenment rational morality" even exists as a convenient target at which one can lob criticism such as not being able to "foster any impulse toward solidarity" is questionable.//

I think that the only way to redeem "Enlightenment rational morality" is to demonstrate that it can give rise to viable moral ABSOLUTES. However, this is the very thing that secularism disdains.

Consequently, it will be hard to "foster any impulse toward solidarity" on merely short-sighted pragmatic concerns. These are adequate when it comes to finding my next meal, but when it’s a question of finding a meaning or purpose, pragmatism – by definition – goes no further than getting my needs met.